They could have called it Xaslkdjalksh ASdasd and then we'd all be able to argue about Xaslkdjalksh ASdasd. But they decided to redefine "open source" which unfortunately already has a lot of other meanings.

Well I think an Open Source (note the capitals) Java solves more problems than it creates. The main one for me is that it probably guarantees my future better than the current state of affairs -- I believe an O.S.Java will be able to compete better with a 'standards-based' (ha) .Net. I mean, you've got all these open source developers who are pedantic about not using proprietary, closed-source, (or anything else that doesn't fit the definition) software, who are now gunning for DeIcaza and his lot to finish Mono, so they can use .Net on Linux. Throw an Open Source Java at them, and you remove a lot of the arguments from that camp. Sun gets a larger developer base like they've been wanting (http://www.fawcette.com/reports/javaone/2003/keynote2/),and the chances of Java work drying up because of .Net market share decrease significantly.

Yes yes, before you flame, I know I'm glossing over some of the finer points.

The article is interesting (was it intended to put the same link there twice?) and addresses some of the thoughts here in this forum. The article emphasizes that there are pros and cons and it's not easy to answer the question, if Java should be opensourced.

I realised that Mono gains momentum and becomes more popular. Is there any insider here who can compare Mono vs. free VMs (gij+gcj)? What other modern object orientated languages/platforms do you know besides .Net and Java? So, if Mono becomes more popular, Java probably becomes less popular.

Can't tell about Mono (or .Net in general), but a friend of mine is a Debian packager, and it is clear that Java is "teh evil" for hardcore Open Source supporters.

AFAIK (my info may be outdated) only a few Java apps made their way into the distribution, and they are mainly from Apache (Tomcat, Xerces,...) which are included because they are used on server-side.

Since Mono is developed under an Open Source license, it should receive a strong support from this community. In fact, I think there is a kind of "competition" to produce a very good, full-featured .Net implementation so that they could catch a few Windows developers in "Linux's net".

Can't tell about Mono (or .Net in general), but a friend of mine is a Debian packager, and it is clear that Java is "teh evil" for hardcore Open Source supporters.

Exactly. Which is why Java -should- be Open Source. When you think about it, with a properly 'constructed' licence, TCK-compliance in order to use the Java 'brand', there's no reason why opening Java up should make that much (or any) difference to those who aren't particularly in favour of the idea. But it'll make a big difference to the OSS community.

Might be nice to have a stable/unstable release cycle for Java, somewhat like the Linux kernel. Even number releases: 1.6, 1.8, etc are stable, odd numbers contain more experimental features which have received less vigorous testing. From the point of view of the general non-technical public, they never see anything other than 'even' releases. Those of us on the cutting edge, server-side, whatever, get to play with cool stuff.

Might be nice to have a stable/unstable release cycle for Java, somewhat like the Linux kernel. Even number releases: 1.6, 1.8, etc are stable, odd numbers contain more experimental features which have received less vigorous testing. From the point of view of the general non-technical public, they never see anything other than 'even' releases. Those of us on the cutting edge, server-side, whatever, get to play with cool stuff.

Well we already have this, up to some extent. The unstable releases are available as "early access", alphas or betas. I don't think having a odd/even system is that useful, and anyway discussing it is a bit premature

The main one for me is that it probably guarantees my future better than the current state of affairs -- I believe an O.S.Java will be able to compete better with a 'standards-based' (ha) .Net.

Ha! What makes you think IBM, Sun, and all the other multi-billion-dollar backers of Java are all going to go bankrupt? Because you can certainly be sure that's what it would take for most of them to cede the *server* market to Microsoft; they'll make sure java trumps .NET for all they're worth. They're not stupid; they know they've lost the war for desktops (although Sun and others are fighting some interesting rear-guard actions right now), but the reason they allowed themselves to lose that war was partly that most of their revenues always came from the server side anyway - the profit margins have always been much bigger and the revenues were too (...and MS's stellar success in growing desktop revenues was quite a shock for them, IIRC).

Purely for political reasons, even leaving aside technology reasons, they will *never* allow .NET to dominate. You're safe with your java job for a good twenty years yet...(although, of course, it would be very foolish to base career choices on the opinions of a single person like me )

Quote

I mean, you've got all these open source developers who are pedantic about not using proprietary, closed-source, (or anything else that doesn't fit the definition) software, who are now gunning for DeIcaza and his lot to finish Mono, so they can use .Net on Linux. Throw an Open Source Java at them, and you remove a lot of the arguments from that camp.

To be honest, I'm not entirely sure a platform owner should want the kind of developers who make their implementation choices based so completely upon politics rather than what is the best tool for the job - that's a mentality that pretty much flies in the face of most project-management and systems-design best-practice. Shrug. I don't know; just a thought...

Phipps said: "Besides, he said that since version 2.5 of the Java Development Process that was ratified some 18 months ago it has been possible for anyone to create an implementation of Java that complies with the Open Source requirements."

Can anyone explain this? How can I create an Opensource Java?

And: "The question he should really be asking is why has no-one else offered to create an Open Source version of Java. Maybe because it's on the 'too hard' list. Sun would support an Open Source version of Java, but it need a lot of money and time to do so.".

He said "no-one else". Which person or company is he refering to?

Btw. For me it's a surprise that Richard Stallman says "a free and complete Java platform" is the most pressing need for GNU. That's another indicator that an Open Source Java would receive a lot of support.

Ha! What makes you think IBM, Sun, and all the other multi-billion-dollar backers of Java are all going to go bankrupt? Because you can certainly be sure that's what it would take for most of them to cede the *server* market to Microsoft

I have to drag out my horse blinkers comment again, I'm afraid. Back before .Net came out, the general consensus was that Java had too much a headstart for .Net to garner much mind/marketshare. Plus you've got all these multi-billion-dolar backers of java......of course, I've got nothing to go on other than reading, but the general consensus now seems to be that it's even-stevens on market share between the two.

Quote

To be honest, I'm not entirely sure a platform owner should want the kind of developers who make their implementation choices based so completely upon politics rather than what is the best tool for the job

Blinkers. When various governments are starting to look more towards open source solutions, the decision is starting to be more political than ever.And just to drag out my high horse for a moment... that decision has -always- been political. Be it proprietary or open source. I have lost count of the number of software platform purchases that have been made in the large corporates I've worked in due to the CEO, CTO, or whatever, going out to lunch with the director of the software provider.

Nature of politics is it goes through fashion changes, the political view is not one to make a long term decision on.

Mono seems to have a slight flaw, its based on a MS "standard". Doesn't think mean that the minute Mono have got it "right", MS will change the standard making it incompatible again...

In addition, from Sun's point of view, why would they want to Open Source Java, the "money" as it were is in big business. Big business doesn't want the source they just want some to work reliably and cheaply. From buisness point of view they get they pluses of OS (i.e. free software) without the scary bits (joe teenager and his mates hacking at the source).

<personal-opinion>Finally.. Eric Raymond, possibly one of the most annoying people in the world ever. Its just his sort evangelical nonsense that makes OS so unappealing to the pragmatists around the world. <off-topic>Not to mention unpolite. Once saw him speak at a conference, everyone listened. He then processed to interrupt Mr K-Shell himself by shouting out mid presentation that "hackers" arn't "crackers". Prat. </off-topic></personal-opinion>

Finally.. Eric Raymond, possibly one of the most annoying people in the world ever. Its just his sort evangelical nonsense that makes OS so unappealing to the pragmatists around the world.

That's what annoys me about RMS (Richard Stallman). At times he comes across quite reasonable -- says things I completely agree with -- then at times the religious fervour hits him.... and I want to hit him as well.

I don't buy this either. Making an open source version of Java would mean that people would be allowed to modify it and distribute the modifications, something that ought to run into problems with the compatability requirements.

Quote

Richard Stallman, founder of the Free Software Foundation, last month we asked what the most pressing needs are for the GNU operating system (of which Linux is the kernel), he said: 'We need a free complete Java platform.'

It's time I'll a bit of personal opinion, which I didn't do up to now:

First of all I don't think Raymond's article is very good (the Python comparision is sort of misplaced there). Nevertheless I feel (and it's difficult to explain without investigating at least some weeks), that an OpenSource Java has an incredible high potential and a bright future.

Quote

joe teenager and his mates hacking at the source

I think it's a common misconception that Open Source means that everyone can hack the source. In Open Source projects you often have strong hierarchies and it's up to the project, if they want everyone to have write access or just selected developers. If Sun would opensource Java it's very likely that the same Sun developers, which work on the JRE now, would go on developing it. Furthermore in my opinion it's possible for Sun to maintain a strong leadership for quite a long time. It's almost impossible that "joe teenager" will ever be on top of the hierarchy (probably this is even more likely to happen in a closed-source model) and make significant changes to Java on his own.

Apolgies, "joe teenager" was just a turn of phrase for people outside of the formal structure *. If Java becomes completely open source, i.e. maintained by the OS community, Sun "could" lose control. I guess more to the point, if Sun maintains ownership then they have a vested stake in keeping the quality up (although thats not always obvious). If Java becomes open source but with Sun as the controlling project admin as it were, how does that differ from we have now? Currently, I can find a bug, report it and eventually once someone in the controlling body has decided that its ok, the fix can be submitted.

The only change would seem to be one of a political/fashionable need for Java to be seen as Open Source. I don't see how this is particularly redeemable as a reason to make a change.

Kev

* Note, I wasn't being intentionally ageist before anyone flames, crap programmers come at all ages.. I mean, look at me

The only change would seem to be one of a political/fashionable need for Java to be seen as Open Source. I don't see how this is particularly redeemable as a reason to make a change.

It is a good reason when it can be used as a counter argument to the "we're a standard" propoganda from Microsoft, and when it has the potential to unlock a large number of developers who wouldn't have used it otherwise.

Frankly I think if a way can be found to do it that satisifies a reasonable middle ground -- i.e. keeping the corporate world and open source world relatively happy -- then why not? And with Sun/the JCP controlling the brand and the TCKs, that -might- just be possible.

It is "easy" start coding. Nobody is stopping you... at least Sun isn't as far as I know. The API is all defined for you.. you just can't start with THEIR source unless you pay to license it.If you want to call it "Java" which is a Sun trademark you can get them to bless it by passing all the compatibility requirements.

It is "easy" start coding. Nobody is stopping you... at least Sun isn't as far as I know. The API is all defined for you.. you just can't start with THEIR source unless you pay to license it.If you want to call it "Java" which is a Sun trademark you can get them to bless it by passing all the compatibility requirements.

BINGO!

Ok, so here's my .02 on open source. Open source is awesome for speed, building community, and pressing the bounds of "what if". However, where open source falls is the inability to freeze a build to ensure compatability without someone somewhere having a problem.

Example: You run a mission critical system on Linux. You introduce a new cool app into the environment 9but you are running SuSe and it was developed on RedHat). Things working smoothly for 4 days and then "poof!" crash. NOW, the person who wrote the app is based in a remote part of Europe and has web access only 3 days out of the week. What do you do?

I truly believe that Sun has done a great job of straddling the open source world and the "closed" app world. Make it open for everyone to use, but keep guidelines and certifications in place to ensure stability and compatability. And, you know what? You can't please everyone, no matter how good the system or intent.

Why can't Open Source projects freeze a build? Mozilla does it and a lot of other projects work with release candidates (rc) for stable releases. And once again Open Source does not mean, that no one is working full time on the project.

I have to drag out my horse blinkers comment again, I'm afraid. Back before .Net came out, the general consensus was that Java had too much a headstart for .Net to garner much mind/marketshare. Plus you've got all these multi-billion-dolar backers of java...

I'm afraid that "general consensus" was only amongst the ill-informed, the ignorant, and the foolish. This probably includes most analysts and many journalists and many bloggers, who together manage to give the impression they are a majority (all get a lot of media exposure without usually knowing what they are talking about).

In the same vein as my comments that the blue chips wouldn't let java get killed by .net, there is no way Microsoft would fail to make .net a major contender - this is precisely *why* many corporates are/were so afraid. Unofficially, I've heard this is a large part of why IBM backed java so heavily in the early days (before Sun started doing so)...

When you have a $30b cheque-book, there's no such thing as competitors' "unassailable advantage".

Quote

Blinkers. When various governments are starting to look more towards open source solutions, the decision is starting to be more political than ever.

The majority of govts are still run by politicians. Politicians generally do not make wise nor sensible decisions - only cunning ones. e..g the UK govt's advocation of opensource: the knowledgeable civil servants see it as better suited to their needs, the politicians couldn't care less; then the politicians realise it's a way to scare a vendor (politicians *love* doing this...their understanding of business is limited to "anyone who can drive the price lower is a genius, and will be loved by the media"), and they *allow* the internal advocates some head.

As soon as MS gives a big enough discount, the internal advocates are once again decapitated and told to shut up. Classic story, I'm afraid .

Half-way through this process, it appears the politicians are being wise (or at least clever) in terms of what you see in public. Underneath, though, it's being driven by foolish short-termism (in politics, the only thing that counts is being re-elected and/or promoted to a more cushy job; you rarely have to solve the problems you cause, because *everyone* moves sideways or up every year or so).

I don't see Java "open-source" untill the syntax of the language is standardized. Microsoft bullying Sun on standardization board meetings is nonsense. Why would they do that? Sun could bring up a lot of stuff in all the C# meetings.

Real opensourcing of Java would be:-Standardized language so that anyone can order the spec. As far as I know ordering the spec is now almost impossible,-Sun open sourcing the libraries that are not included to the language itself so that anyone can make their personalized versions of the libraries. As far as I know, if Java were a real language would work with the JRE.-Sun open sourcing the JRE.

Thus:If the libraries and the language spec were open people could create own versions of the JRE that were compatible with the Sun JRE.

I can't see any downsides of opensourcing the JRE. Code that i create in vs.net works usually without changes in GCC. Why shouldn't the same be possible with Java?

Also, if Java really was a open standard, I would see no problem in Microsoft creating a JRE that works better on the windows platform.

Also whoever said that vs.net doesn't follow the standard...

...where on the contrast there is no public standard for Java.... So technically all Java I create is out of standard.

If Java becomes completely open source, i.e. maintained by the OS community, Sun "could" lose control. I guess more to the point, if Sun maintains ownership then they have a vested stake in keeping the quality up (although thats not always obvious). If Java becomes open source but with Sun as the controlling project admin as it were, how does that differ from we have now? Currently, I can find a bug, report it and eventually once someone in the controlling body has decided that its ok, the fix can be submitted.

That's a good question. If it's possible to make the transition to Open Source very smooth (and I think this is possible) and the changes small, then what are the reasons not to opensource Java? It's not obvious for me what Sun wants to achieve. Do they really want to "own" Java? Simon Phipps said: "Sun has no more control over Java than anyone else in the Java Community Process." Maybe Sun thinks Java is very close to being Open Source, so it doesn't matter, if they are really or only halfway Open Source. But this difference is quite important. If Java is Open Source more developers will use it (and Sun said this is a goal of them) and it will be integrated much more smoothly in Linux distributions. There have been a number of efforts to integrate Java, which show, that there is a lot of interest. It will increase the acceptance of Java in the Open Source community. These are obvious advantages. An obvious disadvantage for Sun is, that they lose some of their control. But the statement above sounds as if they don't even want to have control. The JCP is already a step to Open Source, but why not go one step further? Why not use more of the benefits Open Source has to offer? They already do a very good job with Open Office. Why not use the experience from there?

-Sun open sourcing the libraries that are not included to the language itself so that anyone can make their personalized versions of the libraries. As far as I know, if Java were a real language would work with the JRE.-Sun open sourcing the JRE.

Errr...a bit different between a development language and a "industry platform for the development of highly integrated tools." Very different problems when desling with open source.

They might be different projects, but that's not a reason why Java wouldn't be successful as open source software. GCC seems to handle the difficulties, and it's not as if Sun (or the JCP... I forget) wouldn't still be in charge.

J2EE can't be a very large part of that pie. J2EE would seem to be a support/enabling product for Suns real business, which is servers; Maybe a Sun employee could give us some real details about Sun's business?

I can't give you numbers hat aren't public but i can assure you that the Orion server stack is a significant part of our business and that we only expect software revenue to grow.

What that has to do with Java as a language though Im not sure as we aleady give it away on the desktop.

Got a question about Java and game programming? Just new to the Java Game Development Community? Try my FAQ. Its likely you'll learn something!

java-gaming.org is not responsible for the content posted by its members, including references to external websites,
and other references that may or may not have a relation with our primarily
gaming and game production oriented community.
inquiries and complaints can be sent via email to the info‑account of the
company managing the website of java‑gaming.org